Re: Secdir early review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-02

[Dave Rice <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for this review.

On Jun 1, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Reviewer: Liang Xia
Review result: Ready

The whole draft is in good shape and well written.
Some nits:
1. every word should start with capital letter for the section title;
2. section 2.2.4: / ceil(a) the largest integer less than or equal to a /
ceil(a) the smallest integer larger than or equal to a / 3. section 3.7.2:
[ISO.15444-1.2016]? 4. section 12.1: [I-D.ietf-cellar-ffv1]? 5. section 12.2:
should all the RFC move to the Normative References (section 12.1)?

I added a pull request at https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/pull/116 that addresses many of these issues.

Regarding 

section 12.1: [I-D.ietf-cellar-ffv1]?

I found that Media Type Definitions within RFC’s tend to be self-referencing. Since there is no RFC number here on this draft, I’ve used [I-D.ietf-cellar-ffv1] as a temporary self reference.

Issues for clarification:
In Security Considerations, besides the DoS attacks brought by the malicious
payloads, is there any other kinds of attack possibly? For example, virus or
worm are hidden in the malicious payloads to attack the system for more
damages? Does it make sense and what's the consideration?

I haven’t done any update for this. Nudge to Michael Niedermayer and Jérôme Martinez.

Best Regards,

Dave Rice